Giving Nature a Voice: Why Laws Should Care About More Than Just Us

In 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) told countries to cut pollution and help the climate. But they forgot something important: nature's rights. The ruling was about how climate change hurts people, not about nature itself. It's like saying, \""Let's clean up the park, but only because we want to use it, not because the trees and animals deserve better. \"" Why is it so hard to think about nature's rights? Many places already have laws that say nature has rights. Ecuador says Mother Earth has rights. New Zealand says a river is a person. But these ideas aren't everywhere. Why not? Some people think nature should have rights, just like humans. They say nature is valuable, not just for us, but because it exists. This idea isn't new. Many cultures have always believed this. But now, it's starting to become law. Ecocide is a word for harming nature badly. Right now, it's only a crime during war. But what if it was a crime anytime? Some lawyers think it should be. They say countries should be punished for hurting nature, not just during war. But would big countries like the US, Russia, India, and China agree? Belgium recently made ecocide a crime. It's the first time in Europe. But even there, it's not perfect. Environmental laws are often decided by smaller governments, not the whole country. So, it's not straightforward. Maybe nature's rights and ecocide laws can work together. Rights of Nature laws can protect small things. Ecocide laws can punish big harms. Together, they could be stronger. But for that to happen, we need to think about more than just humans. We need to think about the whole planet.